Author
Topic: Is it time for the "CEO" of Canon's DSLR division to resign? (Read 18106 times)

The revealing of the 6D has got to be one of the biggest anticlimaxes in Canon's recent DSLR history. Never has a camera wasted so much potential to score well. If Canon were alone and the only manufacturer producing a cheaper DSLR then it would probably be doing better amongst the Internet forums but unfortunately for Canon, there is the Nikon D600, alongside which the 6D appears as a "huh?"

The 5D Mark III also suffered a lot, primarily because of the rise in price without a commensurate rise in IQ. Again, if you took away the Nikon D800, it doesn't appear too bad but again, there is nothing exciting about it.

Now that all of Canon's cards are on the table for this year, you're left wondering what were they thinking? That Nikon and Sony would just stand by and not enter the market? Or did Canon simply underestimate what they've been able to do in CMOS sensor development?

The 1DX is out there by itself. It is a remarkable piece of equipment, tailor made for its target audience. And perhaps that's where Canon's problem is: it doesn't really know who the audience is for the 5D3 and 6D. Why wouldn't it know that? Because so many people bought the 5D Mark II, it became impossible for Canon to understand all the details of who was using it, how and why.

Thus the success of the 5D Mark II may have actually killed Canon in multiple ways. First they've become complacent because they've thought they could just tweak it a little here and a little there, increase the price and everyone would fall over themselves in love. That hasn't happened, in part because of the price and in part because it was just tweaking. In the second, as above, the camera has had such wide appeal that it became impossible for them to fully grasp why it succeeded and thus they didn't know how to repeat that success. This is likely just an accident of history as much as anything else. Thirdly, in not knowing who to listen to or why the 5D Mark II was such a success, they've ended up listening to the wrong folks about what camera Canon would need to succeed.

Thus given what the 5D3 and 6D have revealed to be, I think that the only option for Canon is remove the people who made the final decisions about which features should be in/out and the price for the camera. I think it is more than evident that they targets for both cameras simply wasn't high enough and thus Canon has underperformed.

Also why is the D600 "better"? Neither camera is even out yet! I'm sure they are both fantastic cameras capable of capturing light on a little digital sensor. People need to find a better hobby besides comparing spec sheets.

Now this is nonsensical. If a business is not doing well then you exchange CEOs. If a business is doing well, why would you do that? Just compare Sony's earnings in the last years. Now this is where you see CEOs exchanged and for good reason, too. I do hope for Sony that Kazuo Hirai (their new CEO) is a good one. I would hate for that company to continue to go down the drain.

That Japanese exec who rationalized the recycling of the 5D1 AF sensor for the 5D2 should have been fired a long time ago. Also hire a better product marketer. Chuckie boy should have pushed the conservative Japanese Canon execs more so they would take more risks.

Is it time for the CEO of Canon's DSLR division to resign? That's a mighty big call, but see it as symptomatic of an apparent misreading of the marketplace with the soft feature set of the surprisingly underwhelming 6D. It comes across as a camera designed by a committee.

What a wasted opportunity to consolidate and build on the success of the 5D3 and the 1DX.

Canon's DSLR Marketing guys should have been fired IF they had created an EOS 6D so interesting to kill 5D3's sales.

It seems that every potential customer basically wanted a 5D3 with a new label (6D) at a (1000 dollar / eur) price lower than the 5D3.It seems that nobody thought that such a 6D with 5D3 specifications would have killed the 5D3.

Could Canon marketing limit the FF sensor performance (low light, resolution) of the 6D in order to keep the 5D3 alive? Maybe. But they decided to limit mainly its autofocus performance (and CF and level and FPS and other).

If YOU were in charge of Canon Marketing / R&D, and YOU had been asked to- deliver a FF which costed 1000 dollar / eur less than the 5D3, AND- avoid to kill 5D3 sales,

what would YOU have done?

On the other side, Nikon guys compare the (street) price of the d800 and the (announcement) price of the d600, and many of them say that the difference (400-500 dollar / eur) is too little.If you are willing to spend more than 2K for a durable piece of gear, buying "just" the d600 could be a wrong choice.This is a(potential) kind of commercial fail that Canon avoided.

I think the bigger problem is that the consumer base for these cameras is growing wide/diverse enough that Canon's normal research/strategy development may be missing the mark.

If you read the forums, it is clear that the vocal group of DSLR consumers is under the impression that it was not possible to take an acceptable photograph with a DSLR until the new EXMOR sensor came out, and until there were dozens and dozens of AF points available in the viewfinder. There is also a strong contingent that does not value the usability and upgraded feature set of some of the semi-pro bodies, because they are harder to understand than say the number of megapixels on the spec sheet (think about those who say the 5DIII wasn't really an upgrade over the 5DII).

It appears the consumer at this point is looking for something that looks good on paper, regardless of how functional the difference is in real world applications. Canon will catch up to this eventually. Its the normal leapfrog of technology. Remember when the nikon full frame was DOA b/c it only had 12 (was it 12 or 10?) megapixels vs. the 5dIIs 21?

Fairly silly post. Also about the 5DMKIII everyone who has used it pretty much describes it as the perfect camera and I have to agree. If you want a landscape studio camera without going full frame on a budget buy a D800... simples.

As for target market it was targeted truly at the only area where good money is made in photography! Events! It is a wedding photographers dream camera. Its also a great photojournalist tool.... and a great all rounder for everything.

The target market for the 6D is amateurs looking to upgrade to full frame. Simple. Whether they have achieved this is yet to be revealed! Please wait for reviews before bashing, its very easy to bash when you haven't touched the camera.

I love this fanboy BS. Every time a new announcement is made all I see negative comments, but the CEO should resign is a new one.... HAHA!

I can't help it, but to me Canon management has not been exactly compelling for some time. In my mind it lacks flexibility and spirit. But this is rather a personal impression than something backed by hard facts (how could it?). Success not alway makes things easier. And btw I love my 5D2 and my Canon gear in general.

The CEO will be judged on the sales of the cameras and lenses, not on their specs.Judging by Adorama's latest sale on E-Bay there is demand for the 5D3, once the price drops some.If the CEO has milked the early adopters and maximized the revenue for the company then he will have done his job.

Dilbert really outdid himself this time. (Which if you look at his history, is pretty difficult to do).

The DSLR division of Canon is sufficiently profitable to help offset losses that have occurred in in other divisions during the economic downturn. A check of Amazon Best Sellers this morning showed Canon with 12 of the top 20 DSLRS (Nikon had 7 and Panasonic had one). Although the 6D won't be available until December, it occupied two slots in the top 20 (body only and kit version each in top 20)

So, Canon should fire the head of the division because some gear heads reading spec sheets didn't get what they think they wanted?